During a lecture at Princeton University yesterday, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia addressed the topics of homosexuality and gay marriage. During the question-and-answer portion, a self-identified gay student asked Justice Scalia why he has equated laws banning sodomy with those prohibiting murder. Scalia responded as follows:

“It’s a form of argument that I thought you would have known, which is called the ‘reduction to the absurd.’ If we cannot have moral feelings against homosexuality, can we have it against murder? Can we have it against other things?”

Scalia added that he does not equate sodomy with murder but draws a parallel between the bans on both inasmuch as both laws entail moral judgments. The nuances don’t matter to liberals, however, because Justice Scalia said the words “homosexuality” and “murder” in the same sentence, so he must mean they are morally equivalent. They took to Twitter to voice their displeasure and the mainstream media joined in as well.

https://twitter.com/Dian8Keaton/status/278566950735581184

For the record, it appears that Justice Scalia is actually making a philosophical/logical argument about the basis of society’s morality. Essentially, he is asking: If people use their morals in one case, why can’t they use them in other cases? But soundbites are easier to attack. Let’s continue.

https://twitter.com/scarylawyerguy/status/278564955035418624

All of the sudden, liberals are pure textualists.

Well, that’s a start.

Reductio ad absurdum =  “In logic, a method employed to disprove an argument by illustrating how it leads to an absurd consequence.”

We couldn’t find a single tweet challenging Scalia’s logic. Instead, there were hundreds of personal attacks and a lot of questionable assumptions about how Scalia will vote on the Defense of Marriage Act. The “moral” of the story is: It doesn’t matter what you say; it only matters what liberals think you said.

  • Chris Morse

    “Essentially, he is asking: If people use their morals in one case, why can’t they use them in other cases?”

    Which is a very bad and inaccurate comparison. Murder can be shown to cause harm. Homosexuality cannot. The fact that certain religions say that both are wrong should not matter to US law. It’s sad if a Supreme Court Justice doesn’t know that.

    • DixT

      On the contrary, homosexuality CAN “cause harm,” and it has—to thousands of children!

      • Chris Morse

        What you are referring to is pedophilia. Both straight and gay people are pedophiles. And I agree, it causes harm. Being attracted to members of the same sex does not cause harm. Being in a relationship with someone of the same sex does not cause harm. And, really, it’s no more our business than anyone else’s relationship or marriage.

        • GoSellCrazySomeplaceElse

          Except for the fact that they make it everyone else’s business. I can’t say that I’ve seen people celebrating that they’re hetero’s, or hearing of a straight parade. People don’t want things forced on them, unless you’re a dem, then force away.

          • Chris Morse

            Because all weddings are completely private affairs. Right.

          • GoSellCrazySomeplaceElse

            Pretty much. They have it in a church, chapel, Justice of the Peace, at someone’s home, or a rented space. Although, I’m not quite sure what your argument is. Maybe your bothered by the ‘Royal Wedding’?

          • Chris Morse

            Because all weddings are completely private affairs. Right.

        • aegean1

          It harms the children when they find out daddy didn’t really love mommy, he just used her (and them) as a shield to hide his true feelings.

          • Chris Morse

            That’s if the homosexual is also a liar. The percentage of liars is no larger in their community than ours.

          • Chris Morse

            That’s if the homosexual is also a liar. The percentage of liars is no larger in their community than ours.

          • Eric

            You do realize that this comment is an argument FOR equality, right?

    • http://twitter.com/Phelpsy64 Disciple

      Have you ever known any homosexuals? I have known several and they are the most unhappy, confused, depressed and suicidal people I have ever known.

      • Chris Morse

        I have known many, and count several amongst my closest friends. And the ones I know are no more happy or depressed than any of the straight people I know. Many who are married are a good deal happier than my single straight friends.

      • Hiraghm

        The homosexual community *was* the vector for AIDS entering the U.S.

        • Eric

          Oh please. If women would put out as much as men tried to get them to, it would be a different story and you know it.

      • Eric

        So what you are saying is that the several homosexuals you personally know accurately represent an entire community? This qualifies you as an expert on the homosexual in America? Personal experience will never be data, no matter how certain you are. If that were the case, I’d like to counter that the homosexuals I know are some of the most fun, happy, sharpest dressing people I have ever seen.

    • Hiraghm

      The hell it can’t.

    • KentPerry

      Its a parallel NOT a comparison you nitwit and morals are not qualified by whether or not they harm someone. You can tell a lie without harming someone and when two people consent to an immoral act does not mean they are not made victims of their immorality. People get addicted to lots of things and share in their addictions with others having the same vice.

      • Eric

        On what, non-biblical, grounds can you back up your claim that homosexuality is immoral?

        • KentPerry

          Sorry pal my morals are biblical. Yours you get from Perez Hilton and I understand that. I also have no obligation to “back up” my claim.

          What I have seen so immoral is what homosexuals do. Their general behavior their self concept all wrapped up in their sexual bent. Their constant whining they are a victims. Their mocked up outrage at this comment made by scalia and how they have turned it into something else as if he intended to compare murder to queer sex when that isn’t even close to what he was saying. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_4bSyh82ADK7WRUdAx7c14RvHr3wPP6sRwS2OE0oeno/edit

    • KentPerry

      Its a parallel NOT a comparison you nitwit and morals are not qualified by whether or not they harm someone. You can tell a lie without harming someone and when two people consent to an immoral act does not mean they are not made victims of their immorality. People get addicted to lots of things and share in their addictions with others having the same vice.

  • Purple State

    Yes, Twitchy, always the arbiter of nuance. Always honoring the full context of any speaker’s remarks before leveling any outrage. “You didn’t build that” much?

    Integrity is hard.

  • 2ifbyT

    Yeah, those words aren’t found in the Constitution. Neither are “emanations and penumbras. These people are as bright as the Michigan teachers.

    • Karl Morey

      Neither is “abortion,” “muskets,” or “separation of church and state.” But by gum are those self-evident and inalienable! At least, according to the logic used by these guys against Scalia.

      • DixT

        Well spoken!

  • http://twitter.com/hamybear Michael Hampton

    Here is the logical argument against what he said you were looking for Malkin’s Minions. To say that homosexuality is equivalent to murder or bestiality is false because both bestiality and murder have a victim. Homosexuality doesn’t have a victim. Both parties are willing partners. Whereas with both bestiality and murder, consent is not able to be given. See? Easy.

    • DixT

      Except when “forced” upon children—which thousands of children have experienced from adults! And, no, they WERE NOT “willing partners!”

      • http://twitter.com/hamybear Michael Hampton

        Show me one instance of children being forced to be homosexuals. One instance of anyone forcing children to commit homosexual acts. I will wait.

        • Hiraghm

          Wasn’t there a Penn State scandal recently involving a homosexual doing just that? Since children can’t give consent…

          • Chris Morse

            No. It was a pedophile. He might have been homosexual as well…you’d have to ask his wife about that. Pedophilia is not the same as homosexuality. Saying so admits your ignorance.

          • http://twitter.com/thetugboatphil TugboatPhil

            If a male has sex with another male, regardless of age, the initiator is a homosexual. Homosexuals are people who commit homosexual acts. Otherwise they are no different than anyone else, and not deserving of special, legislative consideration.

          • Chris Morse

            Right. And they should be allowed to marry people they love who are adults. Just like everybody else. Not special at all.

          • Chris Morse

            Right. And they should be allowed to marry people they love who are adults. Just like everybody else. Not special at all.

          • http://twitter.com/hamybear Michael Hampton

            That is called rape. Very different.

        • KentPerry

          I know a lot of smokers that sued tobacco companies and won as victims yet they were perfectly willing to smoke knowing the consequences of their actions. Likewise I know many HIV/AIDS victims who sued the Government demanding more funds for AIDS research that are now DEAD, even while they were warned of the consequence of their actions.

          I think we should have the same sympathy for them as we do the smoker.

          • Eric

            So in a not so round about way, your saying that these people deserved to die? Wow, and you call homosexuals immoral, interesting.

          • KentPerry

            You ask a question then assumed I answered in the affirmative, so you can cast me as a hypocrite. Next time don’t ask the question. Just put the words in my mouth like you did there

    • Hiraghm

      Oh, really? So cows in the slaughterhouse consent to be slaughtered? No? Then you don’t need an animal’s consent to kill it. Why should you need its consent to sodomize it?

      • peteee363

        and on the doma case, what if a farmer wanted to marry his goat, who are we to judge? or what if i wanted four wives, where does one draw the line on marraige? man and woman is where it has always been, and should stay!

        • Eric

          A human being marrying another human being is radically different from a man marrying an animal, that is kind of obvious, to say otherwise is a transparent fear tactic.

          • peteee363

            who am i to judge, but what about one human being marring multilpe human beings? again who am i to judge, since two people of the same sex seems wrong to me, i am not supposed to judge that. no fear here, just asking logical questions? by the way have you heard of people saying they are following the jedi religion? again, who am i to judge?

          • Eric

            Polygamy has never been fully addressed because there is no demand for it to be so on societies side. You are right though, a logical slippery slope argument could be posed for people marrying rocks, but it won’t. Humans biologically form bonds with other humans, an overwhelming amount of them, to one single human.

            Worst case scenario, polygamy gets enough support behind it to get pushed into the spotlight (which any rational person can agree is highly implausible), let me turn the question back around to you, what are your grounds for opposition?

            Regarding the Jedi religion you speak of, I just read their doctrine and have to say, their belief is more inclusive and contemporary than most and they at least acknowledge that the main reference source of their belief is fiction. When it comes down to it, they are no more or less odd than someone who believes a man was born from a virgin, walked on water, raised the dead, etc, the only thing that really separates them is a few thousand years of tradition. You give those Jedi’s a few thousand years of their own and you might find people who think that if Human – Sith marriages are legalized, whats to stop a farmer from marrying multiple Wookies?

          • peteee363

            there is no turning it around on me! the whole purpose of marraige has been to perpetuate the family. i am no genius, but two men, or two women can’t rightfully multiply, without outside help. a man and woman were given by god what they need to multiply, only together, not alone. statistics show a child born in a normal man woman family has much greater chances to advance in this world. single parent children, and same sex couples not so much. men and women have different exceptional traits, and children need to be exposed to both.
            and christianity does not exclude anybody. we are told to love gays, not to harm them. we are just told to show them the error of thier way. i mean no harm to anybody, i just do not agree with the whole same sex thing. this does not mean i am against gays, it just means i do not agree with them, why is that bad? i do not agree soccer is the best sport, i like baseball, does this make me a soccer hater? because i do not like soccer, does it mean i want to beat up soccer players? i think not!

          • Eric

            You are indeed harming the gay community, this you need to realize. It would be safe to say that many gay folks want the right to be married, that they feel this will validate them as humans. Your opposition to it directly harms them. You simply can not say that you don’t support marriage equality but I don’t have any problem with gays, it makes no sense. “I don’t have anything against soccer but you are not allowed to call it a sport”, see, it doesn’t work that way. You go even deeper with your harm by directly attacking their families (including children) by claiming that the child of a same sex family is at a disadvantage. Even your wording harms, terms such as “normal families” or “the error of their ways”, serve to injure. This is the inherent problem. Your follow your god because he is the truth, the light, all loving, yet you harm and attack, every step of the way, using your god as a weapon. Your vocalized judgments on others creates a more hostile world for the gay community, is this what your god really wants his children to do with the blessing of life he bestowed on them, was this his intended use for his gift of free will? If you truly believed in him, would your short time not be better spent putting peace and goodness into this world? An ocean is made up of countless drops, be mindful of the ones you contribute.

          • peteee363

            rights are given to us by god, and may not be taken away for any reason. but in the eyes of god, gays are not allowed to be married, take that up with him! and yet, gays are not prevented from getting married, just follow the simple rules, and you too can get married. i am not harming anybody by not believing gays should be married. nor am i going against prooven statistics showing children born into conventional marriages do the best on average then any other, take that up with the statisticians, not me! the vocal gay community is a wasted useless part of society. why must everybody agree with them? not everybody agrees with me, but i do not use terrorist tactics against people who do not agree with me. being gay is not normal, and while i don’t think any personal harm should be done to gays, i also do not have to accept thier chosen lifestyle. nothing you say or do will change my mind, so move on troll!

          • Purple State

            If the “whole purpose of marriage has been to perpetuate the family,” why aren’t children required to procure a marriage license? Why aren’t childless marriages annulled? Why aren’t couples past the age of child-bearing forbidden to marry? Why isn’t a couple’s fertility tested before a marriage license is issued?

            Even further, by your definition, why would it matter that same-sex couples can’t multiply? If the “whole purpose of marriage has been to perpetuate the family,” why would that exclude couples who adopt children? Are they not a “family?” Does that mean we should forbid opposite-sex couples who adopt children from marrying — as they aren’t perpetuating a “family,” as you define it, because they aren’t the biological parents?

            In fact, the whole purpose of the marriage license is to join legally two people of consenting age into a single entity for purposes of taxes, property ownership, sharing benefits, etc.

          • peteee363

            so thousands of years ago people were worried about benefits? sorry, but again you are wrong! and in years past, if a couple could not concieve a child, the marraige was null, and void. today people do get married for the wrong reasons. when a person gets married, they say for better or worse, til death do us part. then off to a divorce lawyer, and start over again. two men or women should not be married. now, i am not for civil unions, but i understand this may be the closest thing two gays can get to an actual marriage. but i am not a farmer, why should i get agriculture payments farmers are entitled to? if i would start farming, i can get them. gays are not prevented from getting married, they just need to follow the rules. one man and one woman according to the defense of marriage act, signed into law by bill clinton.

          • Purple State

            We’re talking here of marriage laws in America — America isn’t thousands of years old. When were marriages annulled for childlessness in America?

            Just because “people do get married for the wrong reasons” doesn’t mean that same-sex couples can’t marry. You’re holding gays accountable for the flagrance of straights.

            Your farming example doesn’t really apply to this situation, but OK, I’ll play along. You could become a farmer if you wanted to, yes, and you’d then be entitled to agricultural payments. But you could also be an anything else instead if you wanted to. You have freedom because all your opportunities are equal. What you’re advocating is preventing gay people from becoming farmers just because they’re gay. You’ve limited their opportunities.

          • Eric

            You can’t be as deluded as I think you are to believe that DOMA is going to be around in the next decade, are you? Times change, the bible tells us how to sell our virgin daughters into sexual slaver, we had black folks not allowed in schools, and now, we had gay folks not being allowed to marry, all that has changed. Our children do not care about this, you will see. Your a sad sad little person and will even be sadder in the dusk of your life as you look back on all the change that you uselessly fought for nothing. So much time wasted on promoting darkness when all along, light was inevitably going to win. I feel sorry for you.

          • KentPerry

            The Bible tells us to sell our daughters into sexual slavery? Are you sure the Bible saying that is what people did in that time is the same as the Bible endorsing it?

          • KentPerry

            One man and One woman. The Government had to keep marriage defined this way because, there used to be a time Government actually did what was best for the Culture and didn’t capitulate to a subculture of special interest groups with a special kind of “love”.

            They knew, that of all the sexual relationships that ever COULD benefit all of us, it was the kind between heterosexuals and the legalese defined this contract to be explicit as to not allow for polygamy.

            The legal contract called Marriage and the meaning for its definition was one man and one woman.

            This way, whenever this type of sexual relationship beget offspring,. their would be in place, obligations they are contractually obligated to be accountable and responsible for the life of the children up to age 18. That is what Marriage means in the United States and why Government went along with the Church on this one. That was back when Government actually cared about, we the people and not special interests whose agenda it is to use homosexuals why they will say are victims, to get the legalese of this particular union, to include two people that really have no business involved in it.
            |

            These Judges had BETTER GET A GRIP ON WHAT EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW, ACTUALLY MEANS. The only thing the 14th amendment has to do with due process law and the first eight amendments PERIOD.

            John Bingham, the author of the 14th amendment, had to explain this to congress a dozen times. One doesn’t have to have religious reasons to be against Homosexual Marriage however. Common sense and an interest in doing what’s best for the society as a whole, is what all Governments are supposed to do and not placate the sexual interests, and behaviors of homosexuals by capitulating to the whims of this same selfish, self-centered, self serving indulgence of theirs.

            What Homosexuals are asking of us, is to allow couples, whose sexual bent for the same gender suddenly requires the rest of us Americans, risk increased health care premiums for the spread of MRSA and HIV / AIDS, which homosexuals, are STILL at a 70% higher risk of getting, according to the latest statistics by the CDC.

            That federal and State employee pension funds being suddenly over burdened by Homosexual survivors of same, who have died. This entitles the Homosexual lover to inheriting the pensions that previous actuarial studies in estimating costs, did not consider in their calculations moreover, collective bargaining has most of these retirement accounts in the red as it is and Homosexual marriage only exacerbates the problem. Marriage doesn’t belong to Homosexuals or that type of sexual relationship, anymore than it does many other types of sexual relationships but you don’t see those other types of sexual relationships complaining do you? Marriages between one Man and one Woman, gave Government a record, of couples who have not only swore an oath to each other, spoken publicly among their peers recited as vows to their marriage partner, BUT also become legally obligated by the laws prescribed by marriage, defined as one man and one woman. That they be responsible parents for the life of any children that often come about as a result of this type of sexual relationship.This is what makes the heterosexual relationship special and more worthy of such a unique and respected, class distinction and the very practical reason for such a contract to exist. It is to keep those joined in matrimony, responsible, by incorporating laws covering everything from child support, inheritance taxes etc,. It also helps in forecasting population growth for the census. This unique sexual relationship is the ONLY type, of sexual relationships, that benefit the whole of society. We get nothing from the Homosexual couple and their shared sexual indulgence and going by the kind of treatment I have seen coming from the Homosexual activist , with their militant, in your face, mouthy attitudes, to their truly repugnant, “Homosexual pride” parades….

            There is simply NO reason to give them something so special, when marriage to anyone of the same sex isn’t special, in fact,,

            It’s just GAY.

    • Maxwell

      Because to a Christian, wrong is wrong. It doesn’t matter the sin, they’re all equally wrong.

      Most people I know who are anti-gay rights however, aren’t against it because they think it’s the same as murder. They’re against because they don’t want to open Pandora’s Box. Wether or not the LGBT community wants to accept it or not, they have been a rallying points for pedophilic rights groups like NAMBLA and beastiality rights groups. So, comparing beastiality and homosexuality is more appropriate than you may think.

      • http://twitter.com/hamybear Michael Hampton

        That is a lie. You are lying. NAMBLA only exists on these message boards. No gay rights group has ever endorsed them. We have condemned them. Again, homosexuality has no victim. Please stop lying.

        • Maxwell

          Never said gay rights groups endorse them… actually I know better than to think that gay rights groups endorse NAMBLA. I just said NAMBLA and other groups has rallied behind gay rights groups.

          Homosexually has no victim, I’ll agree with you on that… but it could pave the way for pedophilia rights groups and, well… this:

          http://www.browardpalmbeach.com/2009-08-20/news/those-who-practice-bestiality-say-they-re-part-of-the-next-gay-rights-movement/

          I’m not trying to attack the LGBT community. I’m just saying, don’t be surprised to see these groups rally behind and look to, the LGBT community for support when fighting for their civil rights. Don’t be surprise either when they make the same arguments the LGBT community made, and start comparing themselves to the LGBT community.

          • Eric

            Your not trying to attack the LGBT community when you suggest that they are in the same group as child molesters? Man, with friends like you, who needs reparative therapy ministers.

        • KentPerry

          Homosexuals attack the catholic church whenever a child is molested you attack religion for there hypocrisy.

          Yet invariably the fact these are by and large, young boys being molested in the catholic church, the question concerning the Church allowing homosexuals to have access to these children is never brought up. It isn’t religion to blame for these criminal and deplorable acts, it is Homosexuals. While I see many in the gay community attacking the Church, I rarely if at all have seen them attack the Public School system when ever we have seen it happen there. Of course not, this is where they want it taught as part of the daily curriculum.

          The whole movement needs to be shoved back into the closet. They do nothing to benefit the culture and have done more to divide it than anything positive because there is nothing positive or of honorable mention coming from this type of sexual union. They have even got us to the point where we can’t judge them anymore.

          Don’t Judge me they say. Well sorry, but homosexuals are NOT what nature intended and to look upon two Men, both in the Marine Corp, open mouth kissing in public, may be what they think is normal or that we should allow them to behave “openly gay” in the Military, but Ill tell you what it has done to me just catching a glimpse of that,

          It made me sick to my stomach and it certainly didn’t honor the Marine Corps. I’m sorry, but it’s just hardwired in me I guess and I wish I had never seen that repugnant behavior acted out by two homosexuals in uniform. Call me a bigot if you like, it won’t change the image it burned into my psyche, whenever I think of the Marines now,, I think of those two queers kissing. I don’t think of the few the proud the Marines. I think of the many who are queer and Gay Pride.

          The fact such a thing is paraded around naked in the streets and called pride is one of the most ridiculous oxymoron’s the left has ever tried to get us to embrace. Pride?? Ha ha ha if they are proud of their sexual bent, that is just fine for them. But it isn’t something I would want to be identified with. No, in fact, it is what we sane and intelligent individuals with common sense understand, as something you should be ashamed of yourself and embarrassed for being caught in an open parade acting out perverse sexual acts in the middle of a street.

          That is how far we have got from our moral compass.

          That is how crazy, this world has become.

          That is how wrong you are.

          you know it and

          I know it

          • Guest

            You play your hand in full view my confused friend. In the future, if you tone down the venom a touch, your fears may not be as nakedly presented to the world for all to see. I am reminded of the saying, “homophobia is so gay”.

          • KentPerry

            You talk about phobias in the same voice you are too scared to post in your own name “Guest” . I am not confused pal.. YOU ARE

          • Eric

            The LGBT community does nothing to benefit our culture?
            Explain this (very limited) list please.

            -Maurice Bernard Sendak – American childrens author (Where the Wild Things Are).

            -Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky – Russian classical composer.

            -Jane Addams – 1st American woman to win the Nobel Peace Prize

            -Walt Whitman – American poet, essayist and journalist, called the father of free verse.

            -Leonard Bernstein – Legendary Composer, conductor, author, & pianist.

            -Jean-Paul Gaultier – Accomplished fashion designer and creative director of Hermes.

            -Mel White – Amercian writer, mainly ghostwriting books for televangelists such as Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, and Billy Graham.

            -Dusty Springfield – Award winner pop singer of the 1960’s.

            -Oscar Wilde – Irish writer and poet.

            -Richard Siken – Multiple awards winning American poet.

            -George Hosato Takei – Television actor (Star Trek) and award winning human rights activist, also known for his work involving Japanese-Amercian relations.

            -Bernice Abbot – Considered the main photographic documentarian of 1930’s New York.

            -Rob Halford – Singer for the heavy metal band “Judas Priest”.

            -Marlon Brando – Iconic American actor.

            -Joan Crawford – American movie and television star.

            -Bryan Jay Singer – Critically acclaimed film director (Usual Suspects, X-men (all), & Superman Returns).

            -Gertrude Stein – Art collector, author, mentor, critic, and fixture in the 19th century Parisian art and literary scene.

            -Caravaggio – Artist who directly influenced the BAroque school of painting.

            -Johnny Mathis – Singer who sold over 350 million records worldwide.

          • KentPerry

            No moron, citing what kind of sexual bent a person has contributes nothing. You go hanging it up as if I asked. NO ONE CARES WHAT KIND OF Sexual bent Johnny Mathis was into! It isn’t who the man is NOR was it what he was about. They were gay?? SO WHAT!

    • GoSellCrazySomeplaceElse

      He’s talking about ‘moral feelings’. Why can’t liberals comprehend what is written? It’s not that hard…oh, wait.

      • Eric

        Feelings should never come into play when a judge is doing his job, feelings and emotion have no place in logical thinking. Feelings are subjective and because of that, fluid and changing. They can not be relied upon to draw conclusions even if reason is applied.

        • GoSellCrazySomeplaceElse

          Our laws come from Judeo/Christian values or morals. That is why sodomy is illegal, morally speaking. But, over time and when the SCOTUS has the advantage in liberal Justices, I’m certain that sodomy, pedaphilia, beastiality, human sex trafficking and other deviant lifestyles will be legal, because “Some of my best friends are pedarests…” ? Oh, and unfortunately, all of liberals reasoning is about feelings.

          • Eric

            Please do not attempt to rewrite history. Where our forefathers received their moral compass, they themselves believed, was irrelevant. There are countless examples of many of our nations founders being outright opposed to mixing religion and state, and in some cases opposed to religion itself. The very definition of faith requires a suspension of logic. You are also placing acts in similar categories in order to equally demonize them. In no way can you logically claim that sodomy is the same as sex with animals, violent sexual assault, or forced sexual slavery. Speaking of slavery, U.S. laws have changed to reflect our mental and ethical growth as have sodomy laws for the same reasons.

          • GoSellCrazySomeplaceElse

            Again, what is it about words that liberals can’t digest. Never once did I try to rewrite history, U.S. Law is based on Judeo/Christian values. Thirty years ago, no one would have thought sodomy should be legal. There’s a Princeton professor who lectures on how beastiality is okay and should be accepted. The UN is trying to pass a law to legalize prostitution and human trafficking. There are liberal writers promoting pedophilia. So, it has already begun. Liberals make decisions on feelings, disregarding logic and reason. You say mental and ethical growth…I say mental. And never once did I say or
            infer that sodomy was the same as sex with animals, but I did say they were all deviant behhaviors

          • Eric

            Saying that U.S. law is based on Judeo/Christian values is in fact a true statement technically since all faiths try to hold, essentially the same values. These are even the same values as the humanist branch of secular America hold. You deny history when you make an effort to suggest that U.S. law is built on a specific faith, you also infer that those who built this nation, did so out of a specific faiths framework. This is simply not true. I am not aware of the UN passing laws to legalize human trafficking, I am certain this is not true, but don’t have proof, a link would be appreciated. The actions of one school professor and the writings of a child molester, hold zero interest to me and prove no point.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Stephanie-Warren/100001648091118 Stephanie Warren

      figures you’d be hall over this.

  • Steve_J

    I think all those people need to go to Michigan and continue their education.

  • http://twitter.com/hamybear Michael Hampton

    I just saw a story on a Jewish leader in NYC who was convicted of 59 counts of child sexual abuse. He abused little girls, so by the logic that I have seen here that keeps trying to link pedophilia to homosexuality, all straight people and all Jewish people are pedophiles.

    • Hiraghm

      He raped little girls. He wasn’t “straight”, he was as bent as any homosexual. Which part of “sexual deviance” do you not get?

      • http://twitter.com/hamybear Michael Hampton

        OH WAIT. So now he is gay even though he raped girls. I am just throwing your ridiculous arguments back at you.

        • KentPerry

          QUIT LYING MICHAEL! He never said the rapist was gay! DO YOU UNDERSTAND English?? you proved many of them can not comprehend much either.

          • Eric

            Michael did a wonderful job of illustrating how the pedo argument holds no logical ground whatsoever. Your caps lock does a wonderful job of showing your getting angry because you are wrong.

          • KentPerry

            No you are wrong.

            see how that goes when others do it back to you

          • http://twitter.com/hamybear Michael Hampton

            YOU said that child rapists are gay. YOU did that. Not him.

          • KentPerry

            They are if the kid is underage

    • $22091572

      why would you single out a j e w ? you dont like it do you? so why do you do that?

      • Eric

        He did it to prove that the fact that this man was Jewish is as irrelevant to the heinous acts he committed as his orientation, why does that continue to escape you?

      • http://twitter.com/hamybear Michael Hampton

        It is called an example.

        • $22091572

          im sorry i should have read it better.. sorry if I sounded rude. have a good day

  • yviemarie88

    Two points: the statement moral feelings may not be word for word in the constitution but I suspect it is because most, if not all, people had them so it was assumed to be a given.

    My second point is to the outrageous statement that homosexuality has no victim. Tell that to the thousands of people, mostly women, who fall prey to those who would use them to hide their sexuality from the public, also known as downlow or DL. Not to mention sexually transmitted diseases, and especially those carriers that are aware they are passing it on. Believe me, just because homosexuals don’t care to acknowledge their victims doesn’t mean there aren’t any.

    • Eric

      There are no more “victims” in the sense that you use the term, in the homosexual community than there are in the straight community. How men use women sexually until something better comes along? How many women are lied to in order to gain sexual access to them? How many counts of STDs are in the straight community? How many of those carriers were aware of it? Your argument holds no weight.

  • Eric

    He speaks of “moral feelings” yet feelings should never factor in a judges process, it is the enemy of reason, destroyer of logic, and introduces far too much personal bias to allow for fair decision making.

    • KentPerry

      Yes Grief stricken victims should just have their feelings ignored and should never enter into the Judges “process” . Shut the hell up you idiot

  • frankyburns

    His argument to the student went like this, “If we cannot have moral feelings against homosexuality, can we have it against murder?” But there is not logic to this, since you can replace the first part with whatever you like, for example, “If we cannot have moral feelings against people of different religions from our own, can we have it against murder?” It seems like Scalia would know this, so I think he is just abusing his position of authority, coming out to law students with what looks like a highfalutin logical form, but which is really senseless.

  • marcellucci

    Slavery was ended based on moral values……..
    Technically, there’s no reason why one person can’t own or be owned by another…..
    If we start leaning away from moral values, there’s no reason for laws…..

    • Eric

      And for the VERY SAME REASON you have put forth, so will DOMA be eliminated. We grow as a society, we become smarter, and we become better, our laws and rules should reflect that. Tradition and feelings have no business here.

      • marcellucci

        The “Acts” are what’s immoral, and enacting any law promoting immoral acts should be avoided….

        • Eric

          What about the acts are immoral? Who considers them immoral? It would seem that you are confusing morality with taste. You find these acts DISTASTEFUL, and that is fine. What is not fine is supporting legislation that imposes ones specific tastes on others. I think olives look, smell, and taste disgusting, but I would never attempt to stop you from buying or eating them.I find it interesting that the anti-equality argument always ends up on the slippery slope idea that what’s next, goat weddings, marrying your mom, etc. You never hear the slippery slope idea applied to laws dealing with private bedroom behavior. For example, if private homosexual acts are outlawed, whats to stop heterosexual oral sex from being illegal, back-rubs, sleeping naked in the same bed as someone else, and so on.